“even Democratic critics of woke dogma admit that progressives have been responsible for reinvigorating the party after the disappointments and setbacks of the Obama era.”
Really? Seriously? Only if “reinvigorating” the party means “handing it over to baby Stalinists who want to cancel and virtue signal the party’s way to electoral oblivion.”
It’s 13 months since Trump won a second election and the Dems still don’t get it. If you say, "but unchecked illegal immigration isn’t a good thing,” you’re a racist deplorable who doesn’t want to admit that this country was built on immigrants. If you say that men can’t turn into women, you’re a transphobe who wants to erase “trans women.” Meanwhile, 25% of students at UC San Diego can’t answer “7 + 2 = ? + 6”.* This is a highly selective university that rejects 75% of applicants. Harvard and Stanford, which reject >95% of applicants run remedial math classes.
The Dems haven’t been reinvigorated They’ve turned into a woke mob. And they won’t win the presidency until they find their way back to sanity.
The only thing keeping the Democrat party alive at this moment is Donald Trump. The Democrat party is otherwise dead. It is the party of identity politics that include, but not limited to African-Americans illegal aliens queers Marxists elite academics and of course unions most especially the teachers unions are destroying American education. Once Donald J Trump is gone the Democrats will have nothing to say. Of course, a lot of what I am saying will depend on who replaces Trump. On that same token who is going to be the Democrat nominate. The top four so-called contenders Pitzka Newsom, Kamala waltz, and that bum from California Ro something out of the question. Oh yeah, and AOC what a joke that would be.
I've said this before, but the far-left will hate JD Vance just as much as they hate Trump, if not more. Expect a lot of talk about how he's the Commander from The Handmaid's Tale whereas Trump was just a crass buffoon and wannabe dictator. Vance really will be able to deliver on the fascist America that Trump wanted.
Whether or not they can sell moderates on this as well will be interesting.
Distrust of government is huge. Note, though, that it's not the Democrats urging investigations into "big food" but RFK, Jr. (Yes, SF has launched a lawsuit, which will go nowhere). Note that it is Trump's administration talking about breaking up some big monopolies. Notice that it is Trump's HHS that is rolling back the massively distrusted vax mandates. Note that it is Trump's administration questioning the STATES' willingness to hand out drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. Note that it is Trump who is investigating the Somaliland welfare fraud in MN. In short, wherever you look, Trump is using government to address the DISTRUST in government. Democrats aren't even in the same universe.
Now, for my usual roundup---and yes there was a great poll for Trump and I put no more stock in good ones for him than bad ones---we had a BIG drop in voter registration data last week, including DE, NJ, ID, UT, FL, CO, KY, LA, RI, PA, and NC. There were so many I'm probably leaving some out. Out of all these observations, only PA and maybe 2 others saw any gain whatsoever by Ds (and we're talking a couple of hundred, not thousands). PA was one, where Ds reclaimed about 270, despite not moving the needle at all in the "swing" counties such as Northampton. But otherwise, we are looking at---yet again, for the 20th straight month---solid R gains. Now, let's be clear: in many cases BOTH parties (+indies) lost numbers to voter roll purges, but in almost all cases the Rs gained ground in those shifts. But the biggies---IA (Rs gained 1/2 point statewide), FL (Rs gained yet another 10,000 to go up over 1.4 million), and NC (Rs gained another net 3,000, meaning by this time Feb NC will be a red state---all moved red-ward. This is completely inconsistent with "polling" and suggests that whatever reservations voters have about Rs, they are terrified of Ds. The Amazing Zohran in NYC will only hurt as his crazed policies come into effect. The investigations of Walz will only hurt. And Newsome? CA continues to wallow.
A "tea party" of the left would involve serious efforts to distance themselves from the vax; from China; from "climate change" (which is collapsing world wide); to embrace Big Data and Big Oil for Big Data; to embrace crypto; to break up Hollywood monopolies; and to insist that not only can there be NO fraud at all associated with illegals, but all illegals must go. Now, do you really see any of that happening? Hence, voter registration shifts.
I'd not mention JFK so as not to be thought a crazy like he is. Trump made a promise and kept it, it was up to the senate to turn down that nomination and they blew it. The sec of HHS is anti germ theory.
First, that’s a disingenuous criticism after literally 50 years of horrible nutrition science like the 80s war on fat. We replaced saturated fat with trans fats and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, and pursued a high sugar and refined carb alternative to a wholesome diet of steak and potatoes.
As to terrain theory, it’s flawed but germ theory cannot incorporate good microbes like those in the gut biome. Terraine theory is an incremental improvement, although bad bacteria can invade a healthy biome.
The largest Dem hurdle? Trump has an expiration date. Lousy Dem policy does not. Bob is right. Trump is the Dem MVP. Only Trump's spending and language, lousy Rep messaging, and the Left's nearly magical Madison Avenue ability to repackage tired ideas, are keeping Dems afloat.
"Affordability" is just "inflation" with new verbiage that allows Dems to blame Reps for Biden's historic rise in prices. Reps should daily be spouting Biden's greatest hits.
1. Trillions flushed on Green fantasies based on "Climate facts" with all the scientific accuracy of the Flat Earth Society. Everyone from Bill Gates to Nature Magazine is mumbling "Sorry, our Bad", after Dems wasted trillions on every loonie Climate idea ever birthed.
Dems seriously proclaimed the death of fossil fuels. They shuttered refineries, pipelines, nuclear power plants and coal facilities with nothing to replace them but wind and solar fairy tales. Then Dems tossed wood on the fire of the Mother of All Bad Ideas, with EV mandates and subsidies, insane appliance and building regulations. . . The combination has produced soaring energy prices, in a nation awash in energy reserves.
2. Housing costs increased 50% or more, nationwide, due to Dems holding interest rates too low for too long, the arrival of 10-12 million migrants without a single extra bedroom to house them and Green regulation.
3. Dem Child social engineering cheered the removal of healthy child body parts, the end of fertility before high school graduation, via "medication", and boys in Girl's female spaces. Dems topped off their War on Children, with many Blue State schools closed for 18 months. The result has been the worst US school test scores in decades.
4. DEI and woke, enough said.
5. Massive increases in healthcare and welfare spending with little to no citizen benefit. Costs were stoked by the lethal combination of lousy policy, massive waste and fraud, and the purposeful importation of 10 -12 million of people, most in need of permanent subsidy.
Yet, no Dem is repudiating any of the above. No Dem Party Reformation coming, just Mamdani and our daily Donald diatribe. Reps may well hand Dems Congress and the WH, but Dem policy will not.
It has to be hard for a political party to share most Americans necessary and healthy distrust of government when that party aspires to being that government, permanently.
Democrats need a primer refresher course, a deep-rooted understanding that while givernment may be a given, its success depends entirely upon the competition of ideas outside of government by the two political parties vying honestly for the electoral backing of an Anerican majority.
Politics 101 has somehow become elusive to Democrats' 21st century statist mindset, no thanks to its Woke Leftist drag.
There is an opening for a moderate Democrat - a liberal patriot - to be elected President in 2028. Trump's public personality alone alienates millions of persuadable voters, and some of his policies are very unpopular.
But there is zero evidence that a moderate Democrat can overcome the far Left activists who control the party's nominating process. The crazies show up to vote in primaries because they are intensely motivated voters, while the moderates are intermittent in their voting habits (likewise with most working class Trump voters who only vote when Trump's name is on the ballot). Name even one elected Democrat with aspirations for higher office who will say that we need secure borders and that we cannot allow every impoverished person who sets foot on American soil to stay here forever and collect public assistance for life. Name even one elected Democrat who will push back on the extremes of transgender ideology or DEI.
The only hope for Democrats in 2028 - and it's a realistic hope - is that economic conditions are bad enough that any Democrat can beat any Republican.
"Name even one elected Democrat with aspirations for higher office who will say that we need secure borders..." If you look on their websites, you will notice that most or all of them say that. Amy Klobuchar: "As we face global and domestic threats, securing our borders, points of entry, and infrastructure must be a top priority."
But, do they mean it? Of course not. They propose an immigration bill which would stop just 4% of the illegal aliens from entering the country and would deport none who were already here. It's the same on other issues like taxes, education and health care. Since they do the exact opposite of what they said they will, it's a waste of time to listen to anything they say.
"Name even one elected Democrat with aspirations for higher office who will say that we need secure borders and that we cannot allow every impoverished person who sets foot on American soil to stay here forever and collect public assistance for life. Name even one elected Democrat who will push back on the extremes of transgender ideology or DEI."
Actually, I think there are very few elected Democrats who would say or who believe that we do not need secure borders, that we should allow every impoverished arrival to collect public assistance indefinitely. And there are many who believe and say that while the rights of every person should be protected there are areas where transgender ideology has become far too extreme and DEI a manifestation of identity politics as corrosive on the left as spreading white nationalist views are on the right.
Josh Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Rahm Emmanuel are all examples that come to mind of Democrats holding such views who appear to have ambitions for national office (apologies to those whose names have not come to mind), and they also represent a variety of positions within the Democratic Party broad base. I think we'll be seeing Gavin Newsom, who originally positioned himself much closer to progressivism (as it's now understood) increasingly sending signals that he recognizes the need for moderate policies on immigration, gender issues, and DEI as well.
Sincere request. Can you point to one instance, during Biden's term when any of the above called for border restraint, or reconsideration of Green polices driving up energy prices?
I had high hopes for Josh Shapiro. His claim to moderate fame was support of school choice, which he promptly repudiated before he unpacked in the Governor's Mansion, but conveniently after, Penn parents elected him.
Forgive my bluntness, it is just my opinion, but Amy Klobuchar is Karenism personified. She is Nancy Pelosi without the polish and 9 figure portfolio. She voted with Biden 100% of the time.
Buttigieg was too obsessed with racist roads, to consider maybe year around tutors for the kids on the wrong side of tracks, would be more helpful then wasting tens of millions of dollars moving perfectly safe freeways 400 yards, so they were no longer appear "racist" in Dem eyes.
Take it from someone paroled after 25 years in CA, Newsom is not moderating. He is shedding his Progressive skin, that will grow back after 2028.
For the better part of a decade, Newsom legally forbade CA state employees from traveling to Red States on official CA business, lest the racism, homophobia, and xenophobia permeating Red State air infect CA state employees, like a virus. The ban ended less than 3 years ago, not 30 years ago.
Now Newsom wants the same Swing State voters, he deemed such homophobic racist rubes, his employees could not safely breath the same air, to elect him President? That might be a steeper hill than many Dems realize.
Amy Klobuchar has always been good on one issue no one pays attention to, but for the rural west, where people during a bad year of work can put 200 lbs of meat in the freezer, she votes always against wolves. Cow elk aren't very much to brag about for horns, but the kids eat good meat through Easter. Also most cow calf operations are small, 40 or 50 cows, a pack of wolves can put someone out of business in a couple of months. People lose the ranch. Not a big fan of Klobuchar, but on one thing she is dependable good.
"Sincere request. Can you point to one instance, during Biden's term when any of the above called for border restraint . . .?"
Yes, I can, Ms. Ross. Amy Klobuchar was a supporter of the bipartisan Lankford border control bill in 2024, which Biden supported as well. (I have no idea whatever what you mean by "Karenism" with regard to Klobuchar, but it does not seem to me related to the issues here.) Pete Buttigieg's 2020 campaign position also included a proposal for securing the border and regulating the flow of immigrants and asylum seekers. In no way has he ever supported the position that we "allow every impoverished person who sets foot on American soil to stay here forever and collect public assistance for life" -- nor, I believe, has any major Democratic candidate. You may not like some of Buttigieg's actions when he was Mayor (which is what I assume you're referring to), but he has acted as a Democratic moderate for many years.
As for Josh Shapiro, I named him because he is one of many Democrats who support transgender rights in general but who have come out against interpreting this to include sports participation.
As for supporting Green legislation, since I support green legislation myself and think it should be a goal of Democrats to help spread green technologies as rapidly as American society will accept them, I do not see such positions as ones that Democrats should oppose. Those who demand Democrats oppose green legislation are, I believe, Republicans. This is not a matter of a litmus test for Democrats, it is an area of policy disagreement between the parties and our tradition of a two-party system is generally beneficial because it allows those disagreements to be argued out.
"Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro opposes legislative bans on transgender athletes participating in sports consistent with their gender identity, favoring instead that such decisions be made by athletic associations like the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA) on a case-by-case basis. He has called politicians who support such bans 'extremist.'"
Hi MG, Thanks for looking into this. I think you'll find if you look closer that Shapiro's position has a number of components.
Shapiro does disapprove of the currently proposed SB 9, which includes provisions banning trans women athlete participation in women's sports, and has said that, given the number of cases (three in the past five years, out of ~350,000 participants) it is wiser to treat these on an individualized basis through the PIAA. He has also specified that the principle governing decisions is that trans athletes "shouldn't get a special advantage on the field." He has also opposed SB 9 on the grounds that it is an unnecessary intrusion of legislation in a context that can be satisfactorily managed by civic associations. Others have pointed out that SB 9 is sweeping in its ban, including all school sports activities down to elementary levels, where the separation of genders in sports is for social rather than physical reasons. This is what has prompted many opponents of the bill to characterize its backers as extreme.
FYI, my own position on this issue is that there should be a presumption that trans girls and women who have gone through male puberty should not be eligible to compete for championship standing in women's sports, but should be able to participate in non-contact women's sports on a non-championship basis. This is in line with the policy direction of the Women's Sports Policy Working Group, which was formed in 2020 to "to restore girls’ & women’s legal right to female-only sports & intimate spaces." (See, https://womenssportspolicy.org/highlights-our-position/) The WSPWG seems to me to find a good balance between the goals of protecting girls and women and recognizing the individual needs of trans athletes as far as possible in a spirit of accommodation.
Thank you. Calling the Immigration Bill bipartisan is a bit of a stretch. James Langford was a Youth Minister prior to politics. His religion mandates care for the poor, regardless of borders. That may be an admirable way to live personally, but it is not remotely sustainable in a nation with a generous welfare system.
Langford was handpicked by a soon to retire Mitch McConnell, one of the last Koch Bros/Open Border Reps still in office. The Immigration Bill simply codified into law Biden's 3 million migrants a year, by the time exempt countries and Gotaways were included. This on top of the 1 million normal order immigrants the US accepts each year. All without a single extra bedroom to house any of the millions of newcomers.
In a decade, the Immigration bill would have formed a new landless migrant only state, comprised of only new migrants, larger than 48 other US states. In the end, I do not believe either Langford, McConnell or any other Rep voted for the bill.
Buttigieg may have campaigned on a secure border in 2020, but he was moot on the topic from 2021-2025, unless agreeing with Mayorkas the border was secure. The racists roads where Pete's federal pet projects that supposedly keep poor sections of cities separate, from more wealthy areas. In Austin a massive freeway is being moved about 1/4 of a mile at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.
I have not heard Shapiro advocate to protect girl's sports, but will take your word for it. Perhaps for Dems, the above is moderation. I stand corrected.
There is no evidence - not even a particle of evidence - to support the claims you make here other than for Rahm Emanuel. All the other Democrats you mention are completely silent about these issues except when they express opposition to what any Republican says about them. They are all terrified of the Wokesters who now control the Democratic nominating process.
None of them are sincere in what they say. They all supported the Biden non-enforcement of immigration laws and they even the ICE actions to arrest criminals. None of them has pushed back on the extremes of transgender mania and DEI. They are fortunate that all major media political journalists outside of Fox function as cheerleaders for them and will never ask them questions that challenge them about these issues.
"None of them are sincere" is a statement not open to proof or disproof, Mr. Webster. I gave examples that contradict the claims you made and you have waved them away. Putting my reply together took some effort (such as fact-checking myself on positions taken by the politicians I named). When you dismiss it out of hand I have to feel that there's really nothing to be gained by further effort when you're in this frame of mind. Perhaps at another time we can engage more seriously.
During Obama's time every state and county jail would release illegal immigrants to ICE. The rules changed back and forth between all detainees or just those with serious misdemeanors like DUI or domestic violence, and sometimes allowing those with minor children who were citizens. I haven't heard any of those you mention advocate deportation for people whose crime is illegal entry or who have prior deportation orders.
ban nock, are you asking me to pore through statements concerning this specific aspect of the immigration issue to see whether these politicians have addressed them? In recent years, most of those crossing the border have learned to claim asylum, and it is not illegal to enter without permission in order to seek asylum. At that point the problem becomes trying to determine which claims are legitimate. Both Buttigieg and Klobuchar have advocated massive enlargements of the adjudication courts so that these claims can be expeditiously decided and those whose claims are without merit deported. As for prior deportation orders, I have never heard any of these politicians oppose deportation of those whose deportation orders have been fully adjudicated, have you?
One can legally only claim asylum at a valid Port of Entry. Entry between Ports of Entry can only be cured by surrender to Immigration authorities in a timely manner. Roughly 2 million migrants did not, which means they qualify for expedited removal, unless trafficked against their will or absent other exigent circumstances.
FYI, about 3-4 million Biden migrants qualify for expedited removal, which is basically removal on a fingerprint. 500K-1 million already lost in Immigration Court, were handed a Final Order of Deportation and refused to leave the US. Another 500K -1 million have been previously deported. Another 2 million did not enter thru a valid Port of Entry and surrender to Immigration. These people are not legally entitled to asylum hearings, only removal, upon proof of identity.
Crossing the border between official ports of entry (like a river or desert) to enter the U.S. is technically an unlawful entry, carrying consequences like arrest, detention, and removal. Doesn't matter how many sob stories one can invent after the fact.
In countries where I've worked there was a very vast difference between working illegally on a visa like a tourist visa and sneaking across the border. Sneaking got beat, usually by border guards.
Countries everywhere don't want people sneaking in. Sorry.
Those who cross between ports now most often immediately seek out a border agent to surrender to and make a claim of asylum. The illegality of the crossing is determined by adjudication.
Countries everywhere (well, not everywhere) have traditionally recognized that refugees seeking asylum should be able to find refuge if their claims of imperilment are warranted. I'm not claiming asylum seekers are deserving; I'm pointing out that the illegality of their crossing cannot be determined without due process. It is, of course, a major burden, which is why Biden and other Democrats have sought to assign the type of enhanced support to immigration courts that President Trump has instead assigned to ICE.
Fake refugees get put in prison. Anyone who show up on our southern border is a fake. Neolibs looking for cheap labor via BS asylum lose elections, as they well should.
Immigrants have been coached and they game the system and citizens are sick of being patsies. If immigrants have claims of imperilment then why don't they stop at the first safe country? Instead they move onto the good old U.S.A. for housing assistance, food assistance, and sometimes (as in NYC) loaded debit cards.
If the Democrats were even close to wanting to repair the damage as opposed to just papering it over with rhetoric and hoping no one notices, they would be even more upset over the Minnesota welfare scam and demanding heads roll (figuratively of course) than the Republicans are.
I thought the left tea party was already in control for 4 years. Woke corporatists. That was 4 years of delaying the loans for the advanced degrees, inflated salaries for everyone able to write a grant proposal, and cheap servants. I don't think the Left Tea Party was interested in esoteric meat and potatoes things like the FTC, Labor Relations Board, or Warren's Consumer Protection Bureau. The Left Tea folks had their way, and they still control media and academia.
As with AOC, once you strip the Park Slope Populists down to their essentials they are show horses not work horses. Lots of noise, no benefit to anyone except government largess for themselves. Financing au pairs is not at the top of my priorities. I really don't need a Tesla and neither do they.
FYI references to essays behind unassailable pay walls do nothing for me. I'm sure I'd love to read what Judis had to say, but not for $90.
Our leaving the Democratic Party, for good, is because progressives have infested it and changed it. Progressives slam white people, males, baby boomers, police officers, financially successful people, and patriotic people.
Well, we are all of those.
And what do you know? They aren't as happy or as tolerant as conservatives are.
That's much more important to us than political positions.
Democrats (because of progressives) could try to use a different message all they want, but it will contain none of the power that conservatives' message which will be: "Mamdani."
OK so you want Biden 2.0. The first Biden administration was the most progressive in US history and it sounds like you want to pick up where they left off and add more: income redistribution, more government programs. It may be too soon to sell the voters on the policies they just rejected.
Trump & company have been disrupters, for sure. I’m more concerned with the DSA, the identity-obsessed contingent on the left who have been intent on rewiring our institutions to accommodate their illiberal far-left politics.
This piece reads like the worst kind of pundit-class wishcasting—an exercise in treating publication as political action. It retrofits a romanticized version of the Tea Party into a lesson for Democrats, glosses over the actual power dynamics inside the party, and floats abstract “moods” and metaphors in place of anything grounded in how politics really works. The argument never coheres because it’s aimed at fellow commentators, not at understanding the electorate or the institutional constraints the party actually faces. It’s Bulwark-style discourse for its own sake: words standing in for deeds, analysis detached from consequence, and a performative sense of urgency that evaporates as soon as you ask what any of this would change in the real world.
Be that as it may, there’s an important distinction missing in these comments. At the national level, Democrats are not controlled by “woke mobs” or Marxist cadres—Biden’s actual policy record makes that pretty clear.
But here in Oregon, especially in Portland and Multnomah County, politics really do come closer to the caricature that people keep projecting onto the entire Democratic Party. Local governance has been shaped for years by an NGO–activist ecosystem steeped in critical-theory language, ideological litmus tests, and a small vanguard of self-anointed visionaries who see themselves as morally obligated to drag the electorate toward a theoretical ideal. It isn’t Marxism, but it's certainly Marxian in style: policymaking driven by abstract frameworks rather than ground truth, a distrust of public preferences, and a habit of treating dissent as moral failure.
That’s a localized pathology, not the operating system of national Democrats. Portland is not the country, and it’s a mistake to treat its political culture as representative of the party as a whole.
Mr. Vassallo's post is well-thought, restrained in what it claims to know and careful in its analysis of the central problem: how Democrats committed to a liberal vision of America can realign the Democratic Party to draw the enduring support of enough of the electorate, broadly distributed, to regain the leverage needed to restore effective governance dedicated to that liberal vision.
But, as seems increasingly true of the comments section here, the response of readers of The Liberal Patriot seems to come overwhelmingly from readers hostile to the liberal vision and to the project of the blog. The "Democrat Party" is all "baby Stalinists" and "woke mobs," "queers and Marxists," and needs instead to embrace Big Oil and Big Data, deny climate change, ditch vaccines and income redistribution, and so forth. I don't doubt that these commenters are patriots, but they certainly are not liberals.
I subscribe The Liberal Patriot because I'm looking for serious discussion among those dedicated to its vision about how to rebuild a liberal Democratic Party so it can capture the support of a broad spectrum of the electorate and deliver responsible governance that serves the entire electorate. The blog posts seem to open the door to that, but the comments seem mainly intended to shut the discussion down with polarizing attacks by those more satisfied with the illiberal vision of the current iteration of the Republican Party.
I would appreciate the authors and editors of The Liberal Patriot doing what many other Substack blogs do: engage with comments to try to keep the discussion productive and focused on the basic mission of the blog.
> "the response of readers of The Liberal Patriot seems to come overwhelmingly from readers hostile to the liberal vision and to the project of the blog. The "Democrat Party" is all "baby Stalinists" and "woke mobs," "queers and Marxists," and needs instead to embrace Big Oil and Big Data, deny climate change, ditch vaccines and income redistribution, and so forth. I don't doubt that these commenters are patriots, but they certainly are not liberals."
We're equivocating over the word "liberal," but liberal should not be used for leftists. It belongs to people who believe in the Enlightenment project of individual rights and the use of reason in the public square. Leftism is a post-Enlightenment movement that redefines freedom as submission to the General Will and rejects public debate for authoritarian measures. Rawls is a liberal; Marcuse is not. So I would say that the commenters here are liberal, and you are not.
@JMan, unfortunately, when criticised, the left tends to react by accusing critics of being an enemy of what is good, along with assumptions about all the evil things they support.
After Biden’s “transitional president” statement, Democrats wouldn’t allow open competition in the 2024 primaries. They blackballed the only guy who tried (Dean Phillips). They lied about Biden’s condition. When the truth became undeniable, they anointed Kamala Harris, who had never been in a single primary election. And they had the gall to claim that they were “saving democracy.”
In a speech to Congress, Trump said that he wanted to bring back equality of opportunity and merit-based decisions (eg college admissions) over decisions based on identity group. Many of the Democrats sat looking stone-faced and angry. I’m at a loss to understand this.
Sacking people or refusing to consider them for a job because of identity or refusal to write the correct kind of DEI statement is an abomination. And yet elected Dems are behind this, almost to a person. Ditto for “men are women” and open borders.
And anyone who disagrees isn’t a “real liberal.” Hence my baby Stalinist description. I stand purged: I re-registered as an Independent after voting for Phillips in the primaries. 40 years of voting D, supporting Sanders, being happy to pay extra tax to support the ACA, solar panels, and all the rest was and is a lie. I’m not a real liberal.
This is why Trump won. The Democratic party needs to hear this.
But all the left can reply is that I want to ditch vaccines. Again, this is why Trump won. These folks just don’t want to listen to the message. And look where we are.
Bob, I and many here are Democrats. I've always been a registered Democrat and a liberal. Part of being a liberal is keeping an open mind to all viewpoints. While I disagree with many on the right about taxes and socialized medicine I also recognise that they were correct about other issues. If the Democratic Party is ever going to become a party that does things again, we will have to adopt what works and discard what doesn't. We will have to accommodate positions many consider anathema similar to the way the New Right has softened on Social Security and abortion.
I'd also disagree about the need for Justin Vassallo to come onto the comments, he produces a tremendous amount of thoughtful writing and I'd think it takes a lot of effort, his writing speaks for itself. Many more people read here than comment, and he writes for them also.
I don't think that commenters here are hostile to a liberal vision or to the project of the blog, not at all. They just see that same reality that I do, that there is not much possibility of "serious discussion" about how to rebuild a "liberal" Democratic Party because those in charge of the party, of the Deep State, and most of our cultural institutions are entirely opposed to actual classical liberalism. Leftist "Progressivism" is NOT liberalism, it uses some of the language of liberalism to disguise its true policies and purposes, but it is entirely opposed to the principles of classical liberalism. So what would you have people do? Nearly every essay published on this Substack is a discussion about how to rebuild the Democratic Party. As I see it, there is no hope for that. Serious people who believe that freedom of the individual is the guiding principle, tempered by respect for the rights of others, and that government exists to maintain order, protect our rights, and to help those in need (actual need, not laziness or self-harm), will have to found a new party and abandon the existing Democratic Party to the crazy Left. And since the Republicans under Trump have adopted some of these policies, it doesn't leave as much political space for a new party to find a distinct identity. Yes, Republicans will probably remain politically dominant for longer if the sensible Dems build a new party, but presumably these people do care about America and if the Progressives obtain any more power they will destroy the country, which is their intention and they have already gone too far in that direction. So-called "moderate" Democrats who have gone along with them are complicit in the destruction.
Deborah, The word "liberal" can indeed refer to "classical liberalism," but just as your post reflects, unless it is modified by word such as "classical" it has a long history of referring to those who politics are in the tradition of the New Deal and Great Society. This is why, during the presidential debates of 2004, George W. Bush, looking to John Kerry, raised his voice and emphasized to the audience, "He's a liberal! He's a liberal!"
Here's a back-and-forth between the then-moderate-conservative Tucker Carlson and the very conservative columnist Bob Novak:
CARLSON: ... You know, the Bush people are looking for an issue, but a lot of them were erased by the debates. You know, he's [Kerry's] not a scary character.
NOVAK: Scares me!
CARLSON: He's -- well, you scare easily. He looked presidential. You know, he's not a raving liberal. He certainly can't...
NOVAK: He is a raving liberal!
These "classical liberal" spokespeople had no problem understanding the idea of labeling a reasonably centrist Democrat as "liberal," and I understand, given the backgrounds of the authors of the Liberal Patriot blog, why they used the word "Liberal" and why their focus is on the recentering of the Democratic Party, rather than on the patriotism of Heritage Foundation "classical liberals."
As a New Deal / Great Society liberal (or a "vanilla liberal," as I frequently refer to myself), I have always felt there is a great deal of wisdom in "classical liberalism" that Democratic liberals need to learn from, and that to be "liberal" in a broader sense the party needs to be able to hear and be open to ideas outside its normal comfort zone. When the progressive left began to become highly influenced by critical theory and rigid identitarian frameworks that seem to me highly "illiberal," I believed that the party's focus needed to be on bringing progressives back to less formulaic and more pragmatic and openminded Liberal positions, both on the merits and to avoid alienating many traditional Democratic voters who faith in the party was based on the near century-long traditional of liberalism stemming from FDR's administration on. I understand that last to be something like to be the impetus that inspired The Liberal Patriot.
I see few of the virtues of classical liberalism in MAGA Republicanism (none really -- I think America has perhaps never had a more illiberal ideology in power). I can understand easily why classical liberals would deplore the "illiberal left," but since the project here, as I understand it, it to move the Democratic Party past its illiberal elements and towards a revived commitment to the liberal tradition -- as Bush, Carlson, and Novak (and virtually everybody else) understood it prior to the emergence of woke progressivism -- I see nothing helpful to that project in comments that simply see the Mainstream currants of the Democratic Party as nothing but the most excessive elements of woke ideology. As you yourself write: "Nearly every essay published on this Substack is a discussion about how to rebuild the Democratic Party. As I see it, there is no hope for that." If that is your view I think you are clarifying that comments such as yours are not actually engaging with the project of the Liberal Patriot but attacking the project and those interested in working on it. You're welcome to your view, but, obviously, comments like these do not contribute to the discussion that supporters of the actual project were looking for when they subscribed. That is why I have found the comment section here so unsatisfying. Most of the comments say little more than, "Give up!" often adding gratuitous insults for emphasis.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, I am always interested in respectful debate with liberals in the comment sections since I don't know any in real life. I am not a Democrat and never have been. However, I do see value in a reasonable center-left alternative to the Republican party that can engage in honest debates about policies to facilitate a consensus, which is what the Democrat party used to be. That the Republicans caved more often than they debated was their problem, and one that we on the right were often disgusted with them about. Although I will not be part of any Democrat party rebuilding, I am not trying to tear it down. However, after reading widely about the current state of the Democrat party, I really don't see how it will be possible for party moderates to get rid of the hard-core leftists, who are not willing to debate, compromise, or even agree on what the real problems are. They don't want to govern, they want to destroy, and they say so themselves. With them in charge of too much of the party apparatus, funding sources, and prominent officeholders who are seen by the public as the face of the party, what do you suggest that moderates should do? There is no political energy behind the moderates now, it's all behind the radicals. I read almost every essay on this Substack and comment on some, but they all say the same thing and I don't see any public Democrat sincerely doing any of it. If you think that is giving up, or refusing to engage with the purpose of this blog, I don't know what you perceive as engaging and working constructively. The Democrat Party has a huge problem right now and I don't think anyone knows how to fix it.
Thank you for your kind words, Deborah. I think serious debate across party lines -- in Congress, statehouses, and among neighbors -- is critical to a healthy political condition and something we have utterly lost during my lifetime.
For people like me who are Democrats but who believe extremism among progressive elements of the party is dangerous for the country the current picture of party health looks very different from what you see. I'm generally encouraged by the move of most leaders to distance the party from extreme positions -- I should make clear that I mean positions that appear extreme to the liberal center-left, not positions that Trump supporters would label "extreme" (which seems to cover almost anything any Democrat proposes).
I live in a Red state and I know many reasonable conservative Republicans, including local party leaders, and I also know those people have found many people they regard as reasonable liberals. I'm very surprised that you know none. Since I sometimes track conservative media, I know that from my perspective it often presents a very inaccurate picture of the voices within the Democratic Party, highlighting and often exaggerating statements individual Democratic political figures make to appeal to the dispositions of their audiences and claiming they are representative of the Democratic mainstream -- there are plenty of media outlets on the left that do the same with regard to GOP political figures. If you know no liberals you can talk to and you get information from media you trust because you share its editorial framework, it would be surprising if you *did* have a clear view of the state of the Democratic Party.
If you do have an interest in civil exchanges of views across party lines I'll make a suggestion. Calling the Democratic Party "the Democrat Party" is a red flag for most Democrats. The misnaming of the party was devised as an intentional slur by some Republicans as early as the 1940s and really caught on after the 1994 "Contract With America" campaign and the Tea Party movement later. There are various reasons given by Republicans for using the term: "They're not 'democratic'," "They're rats and should be called Demo-rats," and so forth. But the purpose of misnaming the party is precisely to signal disdain and inflame Democrats. (You will *never* hear President Trump call the opposition party by its actual name -- it would signal respect he would never wish to convey.) If you are interested in sharing views with reasonable liberals, in real life or online, one way to signal good faith would be to call the party they generally support by its name, rather than by a name devised as a slur.
If you think "Democrat party" is a slur, then what do you think of names like fascist, nazi, racist, homophobe, Tangerine Turd, Mango Mussolini, Cheeto Jesus, Diaper Don, TACO, etc?
I read the Liberal Patriot because I like to read from both sides and I would love to have a choice in the next election.
Just to clarify, it is not that I think the phrase "Democrat Party" is a slur; the politicians who coined and used it explicitly intended it as a slur, and therefore it is a slur.
I think the terms you mention that are used to refer to President Trump are disgusting and I frequently say so to people I encounter in person and online who use them. (TACO is an exception: it's not a name for the president, it abbreviates a descriptive statement, and I think it's within bounds, though it's also often untrue.) When I urge people not to use offensive terms like the others you cite they most often ask why, since President Trump has made a habit of coining offensive and belittling nicknames for scores of political adversaries. My answer is always, "Because we have remain better people than he."
The use of the first four terms you list is different. Obviously, they have become worn out by being misused as general terms of abuse. (I think I've been called all four at various times since the '60s. It's annoying but not much more.) There are certainly cases where they apply. For example, anyone who thinks it unfair to call someone like Nick Fuentes racist and homophobic has simply not been listening to Fuentes, who is happy to accept those labels. I've been tracking Fuentes and other white nationalists for six years now and using these terms is generally completely accurate (along with "antisemitic" and "misogynistic"), with occasional exceptions. As white nationalist identitarian influence has spread within the Republican party the Party has put itself at risk of being justifiably characterized in those terms.
I taught about fascism for many years and was always careful to teach students to understand that although the word was, unlike "communist," not clearly defined by theory, it consistently reflected a reasonably coherent cluster of ideas that were represented by Italy under Mussolini, Spain under Franco, Portugal under Salazar, and Germany under Hitler. Those ideas included approaches to the state's role with regard to private enterprise; the posture of the military and police forces; the linkage of nationalism and race; and broad demonization of all forms of socialism as communism (despite the "corporate state" model of fascism itself being a form of socialism). No two fascist states have ever been identical in all these respects, but the same can be said for communist states and both terms can still be applied meaningfully and fairly. Throughout President Trump's first term I pushed back strongly on any claim that his government was fascist in any meaningful sense. I believe the current administration can be legitimately characterized as "fascist," although some people reasonably argue that it is premature to apply the term.
I did not know the history of the "Democrat party" phrase. And if it's such a big deal for Democrats, why have I not ever seen even one comment other than yours about this in any of the liberal media I've been reading for years now?
I'm glad you also consider progressive extremism to be dangerous, but I do not see that effective party leaders are distancing themselves from the radicals, or promoting policies that are not radical. Actually, at this point, most Democrats seem to be reacting against everything Trump does just because it's him, regardless of the fact that taking these stands are often placing them into positions of opposing very popular policies and actions. They are not seriously proposing and actual policies. Yes, some stand up and say a few non-radical things but nothing actually happens. And Democrats no longer connect to or understand what ordinary people want and care about. That has been discussed a lot on this blog. Their "working class" policies generally seem to be bigger government handout programs, which shows zero understanding of what people actually want. Identity politics causes them to divide people into groups who all must think the same and want the same things. Their policies set the groups against each other instead of bringing them together. The Democrats only seem to listen to self-styled "leaders" of the groups, who are equally clueless about what actual people want. Many surveys have shown, for example, that large majorities want voter ID but the Democrats are universally opposed. Also, people hate "climate policies" that cause energy prices to increase, and want us to use fossil fuels. Democrats are beginning to back off a little from the expensive climate mandates, but out of economic and political necessity, not because they really believe they are a huge mistake. People strongly oppose transgender policies for their children, and men in women's spaces and sports but Democrats are all in on trans. Progressives are making white men, and "toxic masculinity" in general, responsible for all the evils in the world, and I don't see Democrats pushing back at all on this. It's causing serious mental health problems and lost lives for young men, and also amplifying some very dangerous reactions on the hard Right that had very little traction in the culture before the demonization of men. People outside the Left also generally love America and many Democrats are no longer openly patriotic, even if they don't specifically say they hate America like the Left does. There are many more examples like this. Democrats who are serious about fixing these things, if they do indeed recognize them as bad, need to learn to ignore the screaming from the hard Left and do what's right instead of backing down in front of a bunch of online mobs.
As for the views of "Trump supporters", those are far more nuanced than the general leftist and Democratic portrayal of them. Many of us are not followers of Trump personally, but are very supportive what he is doing and see it as the salvation of America as we know and love it. Some of it is extreme but the progressives had their way for a long time and most of our institutions are corrupted. Repairs are needed quickly if we are to save what remains. That would be a good project for less extreme Democrats, to drive the radicals out of academia, government, media, museums, and cultural leadership in general. Again, I don't see any attempt from Democrats to push back on the radicalization of our culture and institutions. It would be a good project for more moderate Democrats who want to demonstrate that they are not in truth supporters of the hard Left.
I read a fair amount of thoughtful liberal media to get a perspective on what they are thinking. I cannot read progressive writers, their worldview is so far from reality that I can't even get through a few paragraphs. But I do read critiques of "woke" views so I can understand where they are coming from. Similarly, I never read the so-called "hard right" either, I have no interest in what they have to say because I disagree with it as much as I do the hard Left. And I do think I am aware of what the Democratic party is saying because I seek liberal sources to find out. I don't accept what any media says without checking with other sources and applying critical thinking, which was a significant part of my professional life.
As for why I don't know any liberals, remember that half the country is not liberal, there are lots of us out here in the real world outside the big cities and high-status professions. I am a technical professional and have the educational credentials, but my career has been in the energy business (not a liberal bastion) and I live in a smaller town, in a conservative neighborhood of that town. There are a few neighbors that are more liberal, I think, but our relationship is such that we don't talk politics. My friends are center-right for the most part, and I do not find that I have much in common with those who regard themselves as elites, right or left. The culture and media broadcast liberal/progressive content nonstop, so we are very aware of what they are saying, and since many of the speakers are part of the Democratic Party, they must believe it. Or if they say something more centrist, they could be lying to appear less radical, which has been a common practice of Democrats running for office and hoping that the constituents won't notice how they vote when they get elected. That's been going on for decades, and I've read some liberal media that essentially recommends that candidates prepare a list of "talking points" that are not radical and use those to campaign on. You can say that all candidates lie, but I've been around a long time and see more lies on the Left than on the Right.
Deborah, You've raised a very broad array of issues and commented on the Democrats' positions with a certainty that exceeds most of the confidence I'd have in stating "Republicans'" positions. I certainly don't view all Trump supporters as having uniform beliefs: my neighborhood alone would refute that.
On the issue of "Democrat Party" and the force of the term, I think if you simply reflect on the fact that the name of the party is and has been "The Democratic Party" for over two hundred years and ask yourself why Republicans do not use the party's actual name you'll have a better idea of why Democratic Party supporters regard the GOP usage as intentional disrespect and provocation. I think if I addressed you repeatedly as "Debor" despite your corrections, while I claimed I wanted to have meaningful conversations with you, you'd feel much the same. (The Wikipedia account of the term's history and reception gives a good overview, if you're interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet).)
I want to make clear that among the policies you've listed I am an unqualified supporter of the mainstream Democratic policy on climate change and the urgency of conversion to green energy -- as rapidly as possible. That last clause includes awareness that political resistance by those who feel short-term costs are too great to justify pursuing enormous long-term benefits. If taking a maximalist approach to ending reliance on fossil fuels will actually mobilize opposition to it, the best path to a sustainable future means scaling back short-term policy goals. This, of course, is simply my view; however, I have read extensively on this topic for two decades now, including reading attempts to refute mainstream scientific consensus positions, so it's not an uninformed view, but it's certainly not authoritative -- I'm not an atmospheric scientist (though I have discussed the issue with a variety of academic scientists -- including people I would characterize as politically moderate).
On trans issues I think there are two dimensions: medical issues and issues of rights. The medical issues concern causes for the rise in transgender identification and the proper medical response, particularly in cases of minors. The rights aspect concern things such as job discrimination and the hot-button issues of terminology, bathroom access, and sports. In general, I think the views I hold are widely articulated among Democratic politicians. Essentially they involve medical caution and an awareness that we are just now starting to seek to understand transgenderism, and that until we know more we should make sure that those seeking transgender identification are not presented with substantially irreversible options until they are adults, and are made fully aware of the medical consequences of them when they are adults. As for rights, I think most Democrats now believe the key analytic tool is the idea of affording all/equal rights to transgender people unless they infringe on the rights of others. That implies limits in the area of sports, but not in terms of job qualifications. The bathroom issue is extremely difficult to adjudicate because of the idea that access according to self-identification is a license for fraud among male peeping Toms and potential abusers. As far as terminology is concerned, I have always believed people should be addressed as they prefer to be addressed and I see no reason it should be any different for transgender people. They are much persons as you or I.
Voter ID laws are a more tangled issue than many people realize. For many Democrats, including Democratic politicians, simple ID requirements in themselves are not a problem, but some states have instituted ID requirements that seem intentionally burdensome on sectors of the electorate that tend to vote Democratic. The goal seems not to be to prevent fraud but to disenfranchise a portion of the Democratic vote. There are examples in the state where I live. I thought we did fine without ID in the past: examples of fraud by individuals were exceedingly rare (and to me seemed persistently to involve Republicans), but if the required photo ID is easily acquired I see no harm in it.
That's about as far as I can get in the midst of afternoon obligations. I've appreciated our exchanges; thank you for your civility.
Even if the party of Trump, or whoever is in control of the Republicans next election time, completely drops the ball, the Democrats don't seem to have a plan the majority of voters could vote for and put them in power.
No viable plan for anyway to gain power, even amongst themselves, no viable blueprint for how they'd run the country if they somehow won in the fall.
“even Democratic critics of woke dogma admit that progressives have been responsible for reinvigorating the party after the disappointments and setbacks of the Obama era.”
Really? Seriously? Only if “reinvigorating” the party means “handing it over to baby Stalinists who want to cancel and virtue signal the party’s way to electoral oblivion.”
It’s 13 months since Trump won a second election and the Dems still don’t get it. If you say, "but unchecked illegal immigration isn’t a good thing,” you’re a racist deplorable who doesn’t want to admit that this country was built on immigrants. If you say that men can’t turn into women, you’re a transphobe who wants to erase “trans women.” Meanwhile, 25% of students at UC San Diego can’t answer “7 + 2 = ? + 6”.* This is a highly selective university that rejects 75% of applicants. Harvard and Stanford, which reject >95% of applicants run remedial math classes.
The Dems haven’t been reinvigorated They’ve turned into a woke mob. And they won’t win the presidency until they find their way back to sanity.
*https://x.com/BrandonWarmke/status/1989069715302666356
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2025/11/12/uc-san-diego-sees-students-math-skills-plummet
The only thing keeping the Democrat party alive at this moment is Donald Trump. The Democrat party is otherwise dead. It is the party of identity politics that include, but not limited to African-Americans illegal aliens queers Marxists elite academics and of course unions most especially the teachers unions are destroying American education. Once Donald J Trump is gone the Democrats will have nothing to say. Of course, a lot of what I am saying will depend on who replaces Trump. On that same token who is going to be the Democrat nominate. The top four so-called contenders Pitzka Newsom, Kamala waltz, and that bum from California Ro something out of the question. Oh yeah, and AOC what a joke that would be.
I've said this before, but the far-left will hate JD Vance just as much as they hate Trump, if not more. Expect a lot of talk about how he's the Commander from The Handmaid's Tale whereas Trump was just a crass buffoon and wannabe dictator. Vance really will be able to deliver on the fascist America that Trump wanted.
Whether or not they can sell moderates on this as well will be interesting.
I really do not care what the left thinks or hates because it is the left that has destroyed and continues to destroy America.
Democrats may not control the three branches of government, but they do control all of the institutions, except for SCOTUS.
It is hard to pull off the insurgency schtick when you are already The Man.
Distrust of government is huge. Note, though, that it's not the Democrats urging investigations into "big food" but RFK, Jr. (Yes, SF has launched a lawsuit, which will go nowhere). Note that it is Trump's administration talking about breaking up some big monopolies. Notice that it is Trump's HHS that is rolling back the massively distrusted vax mandates. Note that it is Trump's administration questioning the STATES' willingness to hand out drivers' licenses to illegal aliens. Note that it is Trump who is investigating the Somaliland welfare fraud in MN. In short, wherever you look, Trump is using government to address the DISTRUST in government. Democrats aren't even in the same universe.
Now, for my usual roundup---and yes there was a great poll for Trump and I put no more stock in good ones for him than bad ones---we had a BIG drop in voter registration data last week, including DE, NJ, ID, UT, FL, CO, KY, LA, RI, PA, and NC. There were so many I'm probably leaving some out. Out of all these observations, only PA and maybe 2 others saw any gain whatsoever by Ds (and we're talking a couple of hundred, not thousands). PA was one, where Ds reclaimed about 270, despite not moving the needle at all in the "swing" counties such as Northampton. But otherwise, we are looking at---yet again, for the 20th straight month---solid R gains. Now, let's be clear: in many cases BOTH parties (+indies) lost numbers to voter roll purges, but in almost all cases the Rs gained ground in those shifts. But the biggies---IA (Rs gained 1/2 point statewide), FL (Rs gained yet another 10,000 to go up over 1.4 million), and NC (Rs gained another net 3,000, meaning by this time Feb NC will be a red state---all moved red-ward. This is completely inconsistent with "polling" and suggests that whatever reservations voters have about Rs, they are terrified of Ds. The Amazing Zohran in NYC will only hurt as his crazed policies come into effect. The investigations of Walz will only hurt. And Newsome? CA continues to wallow.
A "tea party" of the left would involve serious efforts to distance themselves from the vax; from China; from "climate change" (which is collapsing world wide); to embrace Big Data and Big Oil for Big Data; to embrace crypto; to break up Hollywood monopolies; and to insist that not only can there be NO fraud at all associated with illegals, but all illegals must go. Now, do you really see any of that happening? Hence, voter registration shifts.
I'd not mention JFK so as not to be thought a crazy like he is. Trump made a promise and kept it, it was up to the senate to turn down that nomination and they blew it. The sec of HHS is anti germ theory.
First, that’s a disingenuous criticism after literally 50 years of horrible nutrition science like the 80s war on fat. We replaced saturated fat with trans fats and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, and pursued a high sugar and refined carb alternative to a wholesome diet of steak and potatoes.
As to terrain theory, it’s flawed but germ theory cannot incorporate good microbes like those in the gut biome. Terraine theory is an incremental improvement, although bad bacteria can invade a healthy biome.
“NC (Rs gained another net 3,000, meaning by this time Feb NC will be a red state---all moved red-ward. “
Again—this is where your methodology’s actual results bears little to no relation to the claims you’re making.
The above claim is like saying ‘hey the CPI was 1% lower this month, another 9 months of declines and prices will have dropped %10!’
It’s the kind of thing someone says when they don’t understand the CPI.
The Party is too far left as it is. If it moves farther left, it's over for them.
The largest Dem hurdle? Trump has an expiration date. Lousy Dem policy does not. Bob is right. Trump is the Dem MVP. Only Trump's spending and language, lousy Rep messaging, and the Left's nearly magical Madison Avenue ability to repackage tired ideas, are keeping Dems afloat.
"Affordability" is just "inflation" with new verbiage that allows Dems to blame Reps for Biden's historic rise in prices. Reps should daily be spouting Biden's greatest hits.
1. Trillions flushed on Green fantasies based on "Climate facts" with all the scientific accuracy of the Flat Earth Society. Everyone from Bill Gates to Nature Magazine is mumbling "Sorry, our Bad", after Dems wasted trillions on every loonie Climate idea ever birthed.
Dems seriously proclaimed the death of fossil fuels. They shuttered refineries, pipelines, nuclear power plants and coal facilities with nothing to replace them but wind and solar fairy tales. Then Dems tossed wood on the fire of the Mother of All Bad Ideas, with EV mandates and subsidies, insane appliance and building regulations. . . The combination has produced soaring energy prices, in a nation awash in energy reserves.
2. Housing costs increased 50% or more, nationwide, due to Dems holding interest rates too low for too long, the arrival of 10-12 million migrants without a single extra bedroom to house them and Green regulation.
3. Dem Child social engineering cheered the removal of healthy child body parts, the end of fertility before high school graduation, via "medication", and boys in Girl's female spaces. Dems topped off their War on Children, with many Blue State schools closed for 18 months. The result has been the worst US school test scores in decades.
4. DEI and woke, enough said.
5. Massive increases in healthcare and welfare spending with little to no citizen benefit. Costs were stoked by the lethal combination of lousy policy, massive waste and fraud, and the purposeful importation of 10 -12 million of people, most in need of permanent subsidy.
Yet, no Dem is repudiating any of the above. No Dem Party Reformation coming, just Mamdani and our daily Donald diatribe. Reps may well hand Dems Congress and the WH, but Dem policy will not.
It has to be hard for a political party to share most Americans necessary and healthy distrust of government when that party aspires to being that government, permanently.
Democrats need a primer refresher course, a deep-rooted understanding that while givernment may be a given, its success depends entirely upon the competition of ideas outside of government by the two political parties vying honestly for the electoral backing of an Anerican majority.
Politics 101 has somehow become elusive to Democrats' 21st century statist mindset, no thanks to its Woke Leftist drag.
There is an opening for a moderate Democrat - a liberal patriot - to be elected President in 2028. Trump's public personality alone alienates millions of persuadable voters, and some of his policies are very unpopular.
But there is zero evidence that a moderate Democrat can overcome the far Left activists who control the party's nominating process. The crazies show up to vote in primaries because they are intensely motivated voters, while the moderates are intermittent in their voting habits (likewise with most working class Trump voters who only vote when Trump's name is on the ballot). Name even one elected Democrat with aspirations for higher office who will say that we need secure borders and that we cannot allow every impoverished person who sets foot on American soil to stay here forever and collect public assistance for life. Name even one elected Democrat who will push back on the extremes of transgender ideology or DEI.
The only hope for Democrats in 2028 - and it's a realistic hope - is that economic conditions are bad enough that any Democrat can beat any Republican.
"Name even one elected Democrat with aspirations for higher office who will say that we need secure borders..." If you look on their websites, you will notice that most or all of them say that. Amy Klobuchar: "As we face global and domestic threats, securing our borders, points of entry, and infrastructure must be a top priority."
But, do they mean it? Of course not. They propose an immigration bill which would stop just 4% of the illegal aliens from entering the country and would deport none who were already here. It's the same on other issues like taxes, education and health care. Since they do the exact opposite of what they said they will, it's a waste of time to listen to anything they say.
"Name even one elected Democrat with aspirations for higher office who will say that we need secure borders and that we cannot allow every impoverished person who sets foot on American soil to stay here forever and collect public assistance for life. Name even one elected Democrat who will push back on the extremes of transgender ideology or DEI."
Actually, I think there are very few elected Democrats who would say or who believe that we do not need secure borders, that we should allow every impoverished arrival to collect public assistance indefinitely. And there are many who believe and say that while the rights of every person should be protected there are areas where transgender ideology has become far too extreme and DEI a manifestation of identity politics as corrosive on the left as spreading white nationalist views are on the right.
Josh Shapiro, Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Rahm Emmanuel are all examples that come to mind of Democrats holding such views who appear to have ambitions for national office (apologies to those whose names have not come to mind), and they also represent a variety of positions within the Democratic Party broad base. I think we'll be seeing Gavin Newsom, who originally positioned himself much closer to progressivism (as it's now understood) increasingly sending signals that he recognizes the need for moderate policies on immigration, gender issues, and DEI as well.
Sincere request. Can you point to one instance, during Biden's term when any of the above called for border restraint, or reconsideration of Green polices driving up energy prices?
I had high hopes for Josh Shapiro. His claim to moderate fame was support of school choice, which he promptly repudiated before he unpacked in the Governor's Mansion, but conveniently after, Penn parents elected him.
Forgive my bluntness, it is just my opinion, but Amy Klobuchar is Karenism personified. She is Nancy Pelosi without the polish and 9 figure portfolio. She voted with Biden 100% of the time.
Buttigieg was too obsessed with racist roads, to consider maybe year around tutors for the kids on the wrong side of tracks, would be more helpful then wasting tens of millions of dollars moving perfectly safe freeways 400 yards, so they were no longer appear "racist" in Dem eyes.
Take it from someone paroled after 25 years in CA, Newsom is not moderating. He is shedding his Progressive skin, that will grow back after 2028.
For the better part of a decade, Newsom legally forbade CA state employees from traveling to Red States on official CA business, lest the racism, homophobia, and xenophobia permeating Red State air infect CA state employees, like a virus. The ban ended less than 3 years ago, not 30 years ago.
Now Newsom wants the same Swing State voters, he deemed such homophobic racist rubes, his employees could not safely breath the same air, to elect him President? That might be a steeper hill than many Dems realize.
Agree. I suspect that Newsom would be less electable than Harris, who was less electable than Hillary Clinton. And Clinton never had a chance.
Amy Klobuchar has always been good on one issue no one pays attention to, but for the rural west, where people during a bad year of work can put 200 lbs of meat in the freezer, she votes always against wolves. Cow elk aren't very much to brag about for horns, but the kids eat good meat through Easter. Also most cow calf operations are small, 40 or 50 cows, a pack of wolves can put someone out of business in a couple of months. People lose the ranch. Not a big fan of Klobuchar, but on one thing she is dependable good.
Stellar reply.
"Sincere request. Can you point to one instance, during Biden's term when any of the above called for border restraint . . .?"
Yes, I can, Ms. Ross. Amy Klobuchar was a supporter of the bipartisan Lankford border control bill in 2024, which Biden supported as well. (I have no idea whatever what you mean by "Karenism" with regard to Klobuchar, but it does not seem to me related to the issues here.) Pete Buttigieg's 2020 campaign position also included a proposal for securing the border and regulating the flow of immigrants and asylum seekers. In no way has he ever supported the position that we "allow every impoverished person who sets foot on American soil to stay here forever and collect public assistance for life" -- nor, I believe, has any major Democratic candidate. You may not like some of Buttigieg's actions when he was Mayor (which is what I assume you're referring to), but he has acted as a Democratic moderate for many years.
As for Josh Shapiro, I named him because he is one of many Democrats who support transgender rights in general but who have come out against interpreting this to include sports participation.
As for supporting Green legislation, since I support green legislation myself and think it should be a goal of Democrats to help spread green technologies as rapidly as American society will accept them, I do not see such positions as ones that Democrats should oppose. Those who demand Democrats oppose green legislation are, I believe, Republicans. This is not a matter of a litmus test for Democrats, it is an area of policy disagreement between the parties and our tradition of a two-party system is generally beneficial because it allows those disagreements to be argued out.
"Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro opposes legislative bans on transgender athletes participating in sports consistent with their gender identity, favoring instead that such decisions be made by athletic associations like the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA) on a case-by-case basis. He has called politicians who support such bans 'extremist.'"
Hi MG, Thanks for looking into this. I think you'll find if you look closer that Shapiro's position has a number of components.
Shapiro does disapprove of the currently proposed SB 9, which includes provisions banning trans women athlete participation in women's sports, and has said that, given the number of cases (three in the past five years, out of ~350,000 participants) it is wiser to treat these on an individualized basis through the PIAA. He has also specified that the principle governing decisions is that trans athletes "shouldn't get a special advantage on the field." He has also opposed SB 9 on the grounds that it is an unnecessary intrusion of legislation in a context that can be satisfactorily managed by civic associations. Others have pointed out that SB 9 is sweeping in its ban, including all school sports activities down to elementary levels, where the separation of genders in sports is for social rather than physical reasons. This is what has prompted many opponents of the bill to characterize its backers as extreme.
FYI, my own position on this issue is that there should be a presumption that trans girls and women who have gone through male puberty should not be eligible to compete for championship standing in women's sports, but should be able to participate in non-contact women's sports on a non-championship basis. This is in line with the policy direction of the Women's Sports Policy Working Group, which was formed in 2020 to "to restore girls’ & women’s legal right to female-only sports & intimate spaces." (See, https://womenssportspolicy.org/highlights-our-position/) The WSPWG seems to me to find a good balance between the goals of protecting girls and women and recognizing the individual needs of trans athletes as far as possible in a spirit of accommodation.
Thank you. Calling the Immigration Bill bipartisan is a bit of a stretch. James Langford was a Youth Minister prior to politics. His religion mandates care for the poor, regardless of borders. That may be an admirable way to live personally, but it is not remotely sustainable in a nation with a generous welfare system.
Langford was handpicked by a soon to retire Mitch McConnell, one of the last Koch Bros/Open Border Reps still in office. The Immigration Bill simply codified into law Biden's 3 million migrants a year, by the time exempt countries and Gotaways were included. This on top of the 1 million normal order immigrants the US accepts each year. All without a single extra bedroom to house any of the millions of newcomers.
In a decade, the Immigration bill would have formed a new landless migrant only state, comprised of only new migrants, larger than 48 other US states. In the end, I do not believe either Langford, McConnell or any other Rep voted for the bill.
Buttigieg may have campaigned on a secure border in 2020, but he was moot on the topic from 2021-2025, unless agreeing with Mayorkas the border was secure. The racists roads where Pete's federal pet projects that supposedly keep poor sections of cities separate, from more wealthy areas. In Austin a massive freeway is being moved about 1/4 of a mile at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.
I have not heard Shapiro advocate to protect girl's sports, but will take your word for it. Perhaps for Dems, the above is moderation. I stand corrected.
There is no evidence - not even a particle of evidence - to support the claims you make here other than for Rahm Emanuel. All the other Democrats you mention are completely silent about these issues except when they express opposition to what any Republican says about them. They are all terrified of the Wokesters who now control the Democratic nominating process.
I provided evidence in my response to Ms. Ross, above, Mr. Webster.
None of them are sincere in what they say. They all supported the Biden non-enforcement of immigration laws and they even the ICE actions to arrest criminals. None of them has pushed back on the extremes of transgender mania and DEI. They are fortunate that all major media political journalists outside of Fox function as cheerleaders for them and will never ask them questions that challenge them about these issues.
"None of them are sincere" is a statement not open to proof or disproof, Mr. Webster. I gave examples that contradict the claims you made and you have waved them away. Putting my reply together took some effort (such as fact-checking myself on positions taken by the politicians I named). When you dismiss it out of hand I have to feel that there's really nothing to be gained by further effort when you're in this frame of mind. Perhaps at another time we can engage more seriously.
During Obama's time every state and county jail would release illegal immigrants to ICE. The rules changed back and forth between all detainees or just those with serious misdemeanors like DUI or domestic violence, and sometimes allowing those with minor children who were citizens. I haven't heard any of those you mention advocate deportation for people whose crime is illegal entry or who have prior deportation orders.
ban nock, are you asking me to pore through statements concerning this specific aspect of the immigration issue to see whether these politicians have addressed them? In recent years, most of those crossing the border have learned to claim asylum, and it is not illegal to enter without permission in order to seek asylum. At that point the problem becomes trying to determine which claims are legitimate. Both Buttigieg and Klobuchar have advocated massive enlargements of the adjudication courts so that these claims can be expeditiously decided and those whose claims are without merit deported. As for prior deportation orders, I have never heard any of these politicians oppose deportation of those whose deportation orders have been fully adjudicated, have you?
One can legally only claim asylum at a valid Port of Entry. Entry between Ports of Entry can only be cured by surrender to Immigration authorities in a timely manner. Roughly 2 million migrants did not, which means they qualify for expedited removal, unless trafficked against their will or absent other exigent circumstances.
FYI, about 3-4 million Biden migrants qualify for expedited removal, which is basically removal on a fingerprint. 500K-1 million already lost in Immigration Court, were handed a Final Order of Deportation and refused to leave the US. Another 500K -1 million have been previously deported. Another 2 million did not enter thru a valid Port of Entry and surrender to Immigration. These people are not legally entitled to asylum hearings, only removal, upon proof of identity.
Crossing the border between official ports of entry (like a river or desert) to enter the U.S. is technically an unlawful entry, carrying consequences like arrest, detention, and removal. Doesn't matter how many sob stories one can invent after the fact.
In countries where I've worked there was a very vast difference between working illegally on a visa like a tourist visa and sneaking across the border. Sneaking got beat, usually by border guards.
Countries everywhere don't want people sneaking in. Sorry.
Those who cross between ports now most often immediately seek out a border agent to surrender to and make a claim of asylum. The illegality of the crossing is determined by adjudication.
Countries everywhere (well, not everywhere) have traditionally recognized that refugees seeking asylum should be able to find refuge if their claims of imperilment are warranted. I'm not claiming asylum seekers are deserving; I'm pointing out that the illegality of their crossing cannot be determined without due process. It is, of course, a major burden, which is why Biden and other Democrats have sought to assign the type of enhanced support to immigration courts that President Trump has instead assigned to ICE.
Fake refugees get put in prison. Anyone who show up on our southern border is a fake. Neolibs looking for cheap labor via BS asylum lose elections, as they well should.
Immigrants have been coached and they game the system and citizens are sick of being patsies. If immigrants have claims of imperilment then why don't they stop at the first safe country? Instead they move onto the good old U.S.A. for housing assistance, food assistance, and sometimes (as in NYC) loaded debit cards.
If the Democrats were even close to wanting to repair the damage as opposed to just papering it over with rhetoric and hoping no one notices, they would be even more upset over the Minnesota welfare scam and demanding heads roll (figuratively of course) than the Republicans are.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/minnesota-welfare-fraud-somalia-al-shabaab
I thought the left tea party was already in control for 4 years. Woke corporatists. That was 4 years of delaying the loans for the advanced degrees, inflated salaries for everyone able to write a grant proposal, and cheap servants. I don't think the Left Tea Party was interested in esoteric meat and potatoes things like the FTC, Labor Relations Board, or Warren's Consumer Protection Bureau. The Left Tea folks had their way, and they still control media and academia.
As with AOC, once you strip the Park Slope Populists down to their essentials they are show horses not work horses. Lots of noise, no benefit to anyone except government largess for themselves. Financing au pairs is not at the top of my priorities. I really don't need a Tesla and neither do they.
FYI references to essays behind unassailable pay walls do nothing for me. I'm sure I'd love to read what Judis had to say, but not for $90.
Our leaving the Democratic Party, for good, is because progressives have infested it and changed it. Progressives slam white people, males, baby boomers, police officers, financially successful people, and patriotic people.
Well, we are all of those.
And what do you know? They aren't as happy or as tolerant as conservatives are.
That's much more important to us than political positions.
Democrats (because of progressives) could try to use a different message all they want, but it will contain none of the power that conservatives' message which will be: "Mamdani."
OK so you want Biden 2.0. The first Biden administration was the most progressive in US history and it sounds like you want to pick up where they left off and add more: income redistribution, more government programs. It may be too soon to sell the voters on the policies they just rejected.
Trump & company have been disrupters, for sure. I’m more concerned with the DSA, the identity-obsessed contingent on the left who have been intent on rewiring our institutions to accommodate their illiberal far-left politics.
This piece reads like the worst kind of pundit-class wishcasting—an exercise in treating publication as political action. It retrofits a romanticized version of the Tea Party into a lesson for Democrats, glosses over the actual power dynamics inside the party, and floats abstract “moods” and metaphors in place of anything grounded in how politics really works. The argument never coheres because it’s aimed at fellow commentators, not at understanding the electorate or the institutional constraints the party actually faces. It’s Bulwark-style discourse for its own sake: words standing in for deeds, analysis detached from consequence, and a performative sense of urgency that evaporates as soon as you ask what any of this would change in the real world.
Be that as it may, there’s an important distinction missing in these comments. At the national level, Democrats are not controlled by “woke mobs” or Marxist cadres—Biden’s actual policy record makes that pretty clear.
But here in Oregon, especially in Portland and Multnomah County, politics really do come closer to the caricature that people keep projecting onto the entire Democratic Party. Local governance has been shaped for years by an NGO–activist ecosystem steeped in critical-theory language, ideological litmus tests, and a small vanguard of self-anointed visionaries who see themselves as morally obligated to drag the electorate toward a theoretical ideal. It isn’t Marxism, but it's certainly Marxian in style: policymaking driven by abstract frameworks rather than ground truth, a distrust of public preferences, and a habit of treating dissent as moral failure.
That’s a localized pathology, not the operating system of national Democrats. Portland is not the country, and it’s a mistake to treat its political culture as representative of the party as a whole.
Mr. Vassallo's post is well-thought, restrained in what it claims to know and careful in its analysis of the central problem: how Democrats committed to a liberal vision of America can realign the Democratic Party to draw the enduring support of enough of the electorate, broadly distributed, to regain the leverage needed to restore effective governance dedicated to that liberal vision.
But, as seems increasingly true of the comments section here, the response of readers of The Liberal Patriot seems to come overwhelmingly from readers hostile to the liberal vision and to the project of the blog. The "Democrat Party" is all "baby Stalinists" and "woke mobs," "queers and Marxists," and needs instead to embrace Big Oil and Big Data, deny climate change, ditch vaccines and income redistribution, and so forth. I don't doubt that these commenters are patriots, but they certainly are not liberals.
I subscribe The Liberal Patriot because I'm looking for serious discussion among those dedicated to its vision about how to rebuild a liberal Democratic Party so it can capture the support of a broad spectrum of the electorate and deliver responsible governance that serves the entire electorate. The blog posts seem to open the door to that, but the comments seem mainly intended to shut the discussion down with polarizing attacks by those more satisfied with the illiberal vision of the current iteration of the Republican Party.
I would appreciate the authors and editors of The Liberal Patriot doing what many other Substack blogs do: engage with comments to try to keep the discussion productive and focused on the basic mission of the blog.
Thank you for your engagement with the piece
> "the response of readers of The Liberal Patriot seems to come overwhelmingly from readers hostile to the liberal vision and to the project of the blog. The "Democrat Party" is all "baby Stalinists" and "woke mobs," "queers and Marxists," and needs instead to embrace Big Oil and Big Data, deny climate change, ditch vaccines and income redistribution, and so forth. I don't doubt that these commenters are patriots, but they certainly are not liberals."
We're equivocating over the word "liberal," but liberal should not be used for leftists. It belongs to people who believe in the Enlightenment project of individual rights and the use of reason in the public square. Leftism is a post-Enlightenment movement that redefines freedom as submission to the General Will and rejects public debate for authoritarian measures. Rawls is a liberal; Marcuse is not. So I would say that the commenters here are liberal, and you are not.
@JMan, unfortunately, when criticised, the left tends to react by accusing critics of being an enemy of what is good, along with assumptions about all the evil things they support.
After Biden’s “transitional president” statement, Democrats wouldn’t allow open competition in the 2024 primaries. They blackballed the only guy who tried (Dean Phillips). They lied about Biden’s condition. When the truth became undeniable, they anointed Kamala Harris, who had never been in a single primary election. And they had the gall to claim that they were “saving democracy.”
In a speech to Congress, Trump said that he wanted to bring back equality of opportunity and merit-based decisions (eg college admissions) over decisions based on identity group. Many of the Democrats sat looking stone-faced and angry. I’m at a loss to understand this.
Sacking people or refusing to consider them for a job because of identity or refusal to write the correct kind of DEI statement is an abomination. And yet elected Dems are behind this, almost to a person. Ditto for “men are women” and open borders.
And anyone who disagrees isn’t a “real liberal.” Hence my baby Stalinist description. I stand purged: I re-registered as an Independent after voting for Phillips in the primaries. 40 years of voting D, supporting Sanders, being happy to pay extra tax to support the ACA, solar panels, and all the rest was and is a lie. I’m not a real liberal.
This is why Trump won. The Democratic party needs to hear this.
But all the left can reply is that I want to ditch vaccines. Again, this is why Trump won. These folks just don’t want to listen to the message. And look where we are.
Bob, I and many here are Democrats. I've always been a registered Democrat and a liberal. Part of being a liberal is keeping an open mind to all viewpoints. While I disagree with many on the right about taxes and socialized medicine I also recognise that they were correct about other issues. If the Democratic Party is ever going to become a party that does things again, we will have to adopt what works and discard what doesn't. We will have to accommodate positions many consider anathema similar to the way the New Right has softened on Social Security and abortion.
I'd also disagree about the need for Justin Vassallo to come onto the comments, he produces a tremendous amount of thoughtful writing and I'd think it takes a lot of effort, his writing speaks for itself. Many more people read here than comment, and he writes for them also.
I don't think that commenters here are hostile to a liberal vision or to the project of the blog, not at all. They just see that same reality that I do, that there is not much possibility of "serious discussion" about how to rebuild a "liberal" Democratic Party because those in charge of the party, of the Deep State, and most of our cultural institutions are entirely opposed to actual classical liberalism. Leftist "Progressivism" is NOT liberalism, it uses some of the language of liberalism to disguise its true policies and purposes, but it is entirely opposed to the principles of classical liberalism. So what would you have people do? Nearly every essay published on this Substack is a discussion about how to rebuild the Democratic Party. As I see it, there is no hope for that. Serious people who believe that freedom of the individual is the guiding principle, tempered by respect for the rights of others, and that government exists to maintain order, protect our rights, and to help those in need (actual need, not laziness or self-harm), will have to found a new party and abandon the existing Democratic Party to the crazy Left. And since the Republicans under Trump have adopted some of these policies, it doesn't leave as much political space for a new party to find a distinct identity. Yes, Republicans will probably remain politically dominant for longer if the sensible Dems build a new party, but presumably these people do care about America and if the Progressives obtain any more power they will destroy the country, which is their intention and they have already gone too far in that direction. So-called "moderate" Democrats who have gone along with them are complicit in the destruction.
Deborah, The word "liberal" can indeed refer to "classical liberalism," but just as your post reflects, unless it is modified by word such as "classical" it has a long history of referring to those who politics are in the tradition of the New Deal and Great Society. This is why, during the presidential debates of 2004, George W. Bush, looking to John Kerry, raised his voice and emphasized to the audience, "He's a liberal! He's a liberal!"
Here's a back-and-forth between the then-moderate-conservative Tucker Carlson and the very conservative columnist Bob Novak:
CARLSON: ... You know, the Bush people are looking for an issue, but a lot of them were erased by the debates. You know, he's [Kerry's] not a scary character.
NOVAK: Scares me!
CARLSON: He's -- well, you scare easily. He looked presidential. You know, he's not a raving liberal. He certainly can't...
NOVAK: He is a raving liberal!
These "classical liberal" spokespeople had no problem understanding the idea of labeling a reasonably centrist Democrat as "liberal," and I understand, given the backgrounds of the authors of the Liberal Patriot blog, why they used the word "Liberal" and why their focus is on the recentering of the Democratic Party, rather than on the patriotism of Heritage Foundation "classical liberals."
As a New Deal / Great Society liberal (or a "vanilla liberal," as I frequently refer to myself), I have always felt there is a great deal of wisdom in "classical liberalism" that Democratic liberals need to learn from, and that to be "liberal" in a broader sense the party needs to be able to hear and be open to ideas outside its normal comfort zone. When the progressive left began to become highly influenced by critical theory and rigid identitarian frameworks that seem to me highly "illiberal," I believed that the party's focus needed to be on bringing progressives back to less formulaic and more pragmatic and openminded Liberal positions, both on the merits and to avoid alienating many traditional Democratic voters who faith in the party was based on the near century-long traditional of liberalism stemming from FDR's administration on. I understand that last to be something like to be the impetus that inspired The Liberal Patriot.
I see few of the virtues of classical liberalism in MAGA Republicanism (none really -- I think America has perhaps never had a more illiberal ideology in power). I can understand easily why classical liberals would deplore the "illiberal left," but since the project here, as I understand it, it to move the Democratic Party past its illiberal elements and towards a revived commitment to the liberal tradition -- as Bush, Carlson, and Novak (and virtually everybody else) understood it prior to the emergence of woke progressivism -- I see nothing helpful to that project in comments that simply see the Mainstream currants of the Democratic Party as nothing but the most excessive elements of woke ideology. As you yourself write: "Nearly every essay published on this Substack is a discussion about how to rebuild the Democratic Party. As I see it, there is no hope for that." If that is your view I think you are clarifying that comments such as yours are not actually engaging with the project of the Liberal Patriot but attacking the project and those interested in working on it. You're welcome to your view, but, obviously, comments like these do not contribute to the discussion that supporters of the actual project were looking for when they subscribed. That is why I have found the comment section here so unsatisfying. Most of the comments say little more than, "Give up!" often adding gratuitous insults for emphasis.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, I am always interested in respectful debate with liberals in the comment sections since I don't know any in real life. I am not a Democrat and never have been. However, I do see value in a reasonable center-left alternative to the Republican party that can engage in honest debates about policies to facilitate a consensus, which is what the Democrat party used to be. That the Republicans caved more often than they debated was their problem, and one that we on the right were often disgusted with them about. Although I will not be part of any Democrat party rebuilding, I am not trying to tear it down. However, after reading widely about the current state of the Democrat party, I really don't see how it will be possible for party moderates to get rid of the hard-core leftists, who are not willing to debate, compromise, or even agree on what the real problems are. They don't want to govern, they want to destroy, and they say so themselves. With them in charge of too much of the party apparatus, funding sources, and prominent officeholders who are seen by the public as the face of the party, what do you suggest that moderates should do? There is no political energy behind the moderates now, it's all behind the radicals. I read almost every essay on this Substack and comment on some, but they all say the same thing and I don't see any public Democrat sincerely doing any of it. If you think that is giving up, or refusing to engage with the purpose of this blog, I don't know what you perceive as engaging and working constructively. The Democrat Party has a huge problem right now and I don't think anyone knows how to fix it.
Thank you for your kind words, Deborah. I think serious debate across party lines -- in Congress, statehouses, and among neighbors -- is critical to a healthy political condition and something we have utterly lost during my lifetime.
For people like me who are Democrats but who believe extremism among progressive elements of the party is dangerous for the country the current picture of party health looks very different from what you see. I'm generally encouraged by the move of most leaders to distance the party from extreme positions -- I should make clear that I mean positions that appear extreme to the liberal center-left, not positions that Trump supporters would label "extreme" (which seems to cover almost anything any Democrat proposes).
I live in a Red state and I know many reasonable conservative Republicans, including local party leaders, and I also know those people have found many people they regard as reasonable liberals. I'm very surprised that you know none. Since I sometimes track conservative media, I know that from my perspective it often presents a very inaccurate picture of the voices within the Democratic Party, highlighting and often exaggerating statements individual Democratic political figures make to appeal to the dispositions of their audiences and claiming they are representative of the Democratic mainstream -- there are plenty of media outlets on the left that do the same with regard to GOP political figures. If you know no liberals you can talk to and you get information from media you trust because you share its editorial framework, it would be surprising if you *did* have a clear view of the state of the Democratic Party.
If you do have an interest in civil exchanges of views across party lines I'll make a suggestion. Calling the Democratic Party "the Democrat Party" is a red flag for most Democrats. The misnaming of the party was devised as an intentional slur by some Republicans as early as the 1940s and really caught on after the 1994 "Contract With America" campaign and the Tea Party movement later. There are various reasons given by Republicans for using the term: "They're not 'democratic'," "They're rats and should be called Demo-rats," and so forth. But the purpose of misnaming the party is precisely to signal disdain and inflame Democrats. (You will *never* hear President Trump call the opposition party by its actual name -- it would signal respect he would never wish to convey.) If you are interested in sharing views with reasonable liberals, in real life or online, one way to signal good faith would be to call the party they generally support by its name, rather than by a name devised as a slur.
If you think "Democrat party" is a slur, then what do you think of names like fascist, nazi, racist, homophobe, Tangerine Turd, Mango Mussolini, Cheeto Jesus, Diaper Don, TACO, etc?
I read the Liberal Patriot because I like to read from both sides and I would love to have a choice in the next election.
Just to clarify, it is not that I think the phrase "Democrat Party" is a slur; the politicians who coined and used it explicitly intended it as a slur, and therefore it is a slur.
I think the terms you mention that are used to refer to President Trump are disgusting and I frequently say so to people I encounter in person and online who use them. (TACO is an exception: it's not a name for the president, it abbreviates a descriptive statement, and I think it's within bounds, though it's also often untrue.) When I urge people not to use offensive terms like the others you cite they most often ask why, since President Trump has made a habit of coining offensive and belittling nicknames for scores of political adversaries. My answer is always, "Because we have remain better people than he."
The use of the first four terms you list is different. Obviously, they have become worn out by being misused as general terms of abuse. (I think I've been called all four at various times since the '60s. It's annoying but not much more.) There are certainly cases where they apply. For example, anyone who thinks it unfair to call someone like Nick Fuentes racist and homophobic has simply not been listening to Fuentes, who is happy to accept those labels. I've been tracking Fuentes and other white nationalists for six years now and using these terms is generally completely accurate (along with "antisemitic" and "misogynistic"), with occasional exceptions. As white nationalist identitarian influence has spread within the Republican party the Party has put itself at risk of being justifiably characterized in those terms.
I taught about fascism for many years and was always careful to teach students to understand that although the word was, unlike "communist," not clearly defined by theory, it consistently reflected a reasonably coherent cluster of ideas that were represented by Italy under Mussolini, Spain under Franco, Portugal under Salazar, and Germany under Hitler. Those ideas included approaches to the state's role with regard to private enterprise; the posture of the military and police forces; the linkage of nationalism and race; and broad demonization of all forms of socialism as communism (despite the "corporate state" model of fascism itself being a form of socialism). No two fascist states have ever been identical in all these respects, but the same can be said for communist states and both terms can still be applied meaningfully and fairly. Throughout President Trump's first term I pushed back strongly on any claim that his government was fascist in any meaningful sense. I believe the current administration can be legitimately characterized as "fascist," although some people reasonably argue that it is premature to apply the term.
I did not know the history of the "Democrat party" phrase. And if it's such a big deal for Democrats, why have I not ever seen even one comment other than yours about this in any of the liberal media I've been reading for years now?
I'm glad you also consider progressive extremism to be dangerous, but I do not see that effective party leaders are distancing themselves from the radicals, or promoting policies that are not radical. Actually, at this point, most Democrats seem to be reacting against everything Trump does just because it's him, regardless of the fact that taking these stands are often placing them into positions of opposing very popular policies and actions. They are not seriously proposing and actual policies. Yes, some stand up and say a few non-radical things but nothing actually happens. And Democrats no longer connect to or understand what ordinary people want and care about. That has been discussed a lot on this blog. Their "working class" policies generally seem to be bigger government handout programs, which shows zero understanding of what people actually want. Identity politics causes them to divide people into groups who all must think the same and want the same things. Their policies set the groups against each other instead of bringing them together. The Democrats only seem to listen to self-styled "leaders" of the groups, who are equally clueless about what actual people want. Many surveys have shown, for example, that large majorities want voter ID but the Democrats are universally opposed. Also, people hate "climate policies" that cause energy prices to increase, and want us to use fossil fuels. Democrats are beginning to back off a little from the expensive climate mandates, but out of economic and political necessity, not because they really believe they are a huge mistake. People strongly oppose transgender policies for their children, and men in women's spaces and sports but Democrats are all in on trans. Progressives are making white men, and "toxic masculinity" in general, responsible for all the evils in the world, and I don't see Democrats pushing back at all on this. It's causing serious mental health problems and lost lives for young men, and also amplifying some very dangerous reactions on the hard Right that had very little traction in the culture before the demonization of men. People outside the Left also generally love America and many Democrats are no longer openly patriotic, even if they don't specifically say they hate America like the Left does. There are many more examples like this. Democrats who are serious about fixing these things, if they do indeed recognize them as bad, need to learn to ignore the screaming from the hard Left and do what's right instead of backing down in front of a bunch of online mobs.
As for the views of "Trump supporters", those are far more nuanced than the general leftist and Democratic portrayal of them. Many of us are not followers of Trump personally, but are very supportive what he is doing and see it as the salvation of America as we know and love it. Some of it is extreme but the progressives had their way for a long time and most of our institutions are corrupted. Repairs are needed quickly if we are to save what remains. That would be a good project for less extreme Democrats, to drive the radicals out of academia, government, media, museums, and cultural leadership in general. Again, I don't see any attempt from Democrats to push back on the radicalization of our culture and institutions. It would be a good project for more moderate Democrats who want to demonstrate that they are not in truth supporters of the hard Left.
I read a fair amount of thoughtful liberal media to get a perspective on what they are thinking. I cannot read progressive writers, their worldview is so far from reality that I can't even get through a few paragraphs. But I do read critiques of "woke" views so I can understand where they are coming from. Similarly, I never read the so-called "hard right" either, I have no interest in what they have to say because I disagree with it as much as I do the hard Left. And I do think I am aware of what the Democratic party is saying because I seek liberal sources to find out. I don't accept what any media says without checking with other sources and applying critical thinking, which was a significant part of my professional life.
As for why I don't know any liberals, remember that half the country is not liberal, there are lots of us out here in the real world outside the big cities and high-status professions. I am a technical professional and have the educational credentials, but my career has been in the energy business (not a liberal bastion) and I live in a smaller town, in a conservative neighborhood of that town. There are a few neighbors that are more liberal, I think, but our relationship is such that we don't talk politics. My friends are center-right for the most part, and I do not find that I have much in common with those who regard themselves as elites, right or left. The culture and media broadcast liberal/progressive content nonstop, so we are very aware of what they are saying, and since many of the speakers are part of the Democratic Party, they must believe it. Or if they say something more centrist, they could be lying to appear less radical, which has been a common practice of Democrats running for office and hoping that the constituents won't notice how they vote when they get elected. That's been going on for decades, and I've read some liberal media that essentially recommends that candidates prepare a list of "talking points" that are not radical and use those to campaign on. You can say that all candidates lie, but I've been around a long time and see more lies on the Left than on the Right.
I would appreciate your views on these topics.
Deborah, You've raised a very broad array of issues and commented on the Democrats' positions with a certainty that exceeds most of the confidence I'd have in stating "Republicans'" positions. I certainly don't view all Trump supporters as having uniform beliefs: my neighborhood alone would refute that.
On the issue of "Democrat Party" and the force of the term, I think if you simply reflect on the fact that the name of the party is and has been "The Democratic Party" for over two hundred years and ask yourself why Republicans do not use the party's actual name you'll have a better idea of why Democratic Party supporters regard the GOP usage as intentional disrespect and provocation. I think if I addressed you repeatedly as "Debor" despite your corrections, while I claimed I wanted to have meaningful conversations with you, you'd feel much the same. (The Wikipedia account of the term's history and reception gives a good overview, if you're interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet).)
I want to make clear that among the policies you've listed I am an unqualified supporter of the mainstream Democratic policy on climate change and the urgency of conversion to green energy -- as rapidly as possible. That last clause includes awareness that political resistance by those who feel short-term costs are too great to justify pursuing enormous long-term benefits. If taking a maximalist approach to ending reliance on fossil fuels will actually mobilize opposition to it, the best path to a sustainable future means scaling back short-term policy goals. This, of course, is simply my view; however, I have read extensively on this topic for two decades now, including reading attempts to refute mainstream scientific consensus positions, so it's not an uninformed view, but it's certainly not authoritative -- I'm not an atmospheric scientist (though I have discussed the issue with a variety of academic scientists -- including people I would characterize as politically moderate).
On trans issues I think there are two dimensions: medical issues and issues of rights. The medical issues concern causes for the rise in transgender identification and the proper medical response, particularly in cases of minors. The rights aspect concern things such as job discrimination and the hot-button issues of terminology, bathroom access, and sports. In general, I think the views I hold are widely articulated among Democratic politicians. Essentially they involve medical caution and an awareness that we are just now starting to seek to understand transgenderism, and that until we know more we should make sure that those seeking transgender identification are not presented with substantially irreversible options until they are adults, and are made fully aware of the medical consequences of them when they are adults. As for rights, I think most Democrats now believe the key analytic tool is the idea of affording all/equal rights to transgender people unless they infringe on the rights of others. That implies limits in the area of sports, but not in terms of job qualifications. The bathroom issue is extremely difficult to adjudicate because of the idea that access according to self-identification is a license for fraud among male peeping Toms and potential abusers. As far as terminology is concerned, I have always believed people should be addressed as they prefer to be addressed and I see no reason it should be any different for transgender people. They are much persons as you or I.
Voter ID laws are a more tangled issue than many people realize. For many Democrats, including Democratic politicians, simple ID requirements in themselves are not a problem, but some states have instituted ID requirements that seem intentionally burdensome on sectors of the electorate that tend to vote Democratic. The goal seems not to be to prevent fraud but to disenfranchise a portion of the Democratic vote. There are examples in the state where I live. I thought we did fine without ID in the past: examples of fraud by individuals were exceedingly rare (and to me seemed persistently to involve Republicans), but if the required photo ID is easily acquired I see no harm in it.
That's about as far as I can get in the midst of afternoon obligations. I've appreciated our exchanges; thank you for your civility.
Even if the party of Trump, or whoever is in control of the Republicans next election time, completely drops the ball, the Democrats don't seem to have a plan the majority of voters could vote for and put them in power.
No viable plan for anyway to gain power, even amongst themselves, no viable blueprint for how they'd run the country if they somehow won in the fall.
Sound like a winner?